There is going to be allot of noise about Rubio running but ultimately it is just setting things up for a Jeb Bush/Rubio ticket. That is the mainstream media, establishment Republican and Neocon wet dream. If Hillary or Bush wins it is a win for establishment Progressives. Just like in the past it would have been no different for them if John McCain or Romney won.

By the time the primaries come along, the media narrative for Jeb Bush and Rubio will paint them as Conservative saviors and Libertarian leaning. The left will paint them as evil and the fools on the right will dig their heels in to support them believing the Conservative rhetoric as fact.

Bush, McCain, Romney, every election cycle I watch the big government Progressive candidate transform in the media to be the "Conservative savior". How many more times are people going to keep falling for this. I hope people will finally wake up this time around and not be so desperate for an alternative that they will take another Bush.

I couldn't agree more. The "I won't run for office because I might lose" argument is the cowards way out. The only thing that would give me pause if I was Rand is Kentucky's election laws affecting my senate seat. But by that time he would have either won the Iowa straw poll and be a contender or lost it and not. He shouldn't kid himself. The Iowa Straw Poll is a must win for someone like Rand who has the media gunning to squash him.

The more I read the article the more laughable it becomes. Take this part:

If you thought the 2012 stakes were high, the 2016 stakes are even higher. It’s going to get ugly. Conservatives who witnessed how Mitt Romney was demonized (in a pretty similar manner as I predicted) must now realize that it is the goal of liberals to cast Republicans as crazy, evil, racists.

So the "lesson" from 2012 is to get an even more left wing version of Romney so that he won't be "demonized"? We aren't going to actually get someone principled that actually appeals to independents like Ron Paul did? Will this commercial have to be repeated in 2016?

I want Rand to run and I think he has better chance than most people are giving him credit for. That said, I didn't see anything that unreasonable in the article. Rand has maybe a 1 or 2% chance of winning. It would be bad if he didn't hang onto his senate seat. The author was just pointing out the challenges Rand would face if runs.

Republicans thought the economy would be one of the main issues that would hurt Obama come 2012 and look how that turned out.

There is no problem with the economy as long as the 50% of USA families who get some kind of check from the government get it on time.When the checks start coming late or they stop coming then you have a problem in the economy.

I really can not understand giving such a large welfare.Welfare is not meant to be lived off.

There is some truth to some of the points. I trust that Paul's team know this. We would do best to keep our eyes on more Senate and House seats that are pro-liberty. But a well run presidential campaign--even one that doesn't win--could move the agenda in our direction if the campaign is run well. Head down.

My website: iroots.org Looking for folks to help write about activism...
"If you’re into political activism, at least for Ron Paul if not for anyone else, I strongly recommend spending some time with iroots.org."
- Tom Woods

You are being shifty here, while the GOP has pretty much discounted Romney, apparently you haven't: You claim that in 2016 the GOP fronted by Rand will lose because of all sorts of traditional liberal/democratic positions, but when the last loss is blamed specifically on Romney, you discount that by suggesting that the GOP has discounted him already. Which way is it going to be?

Originally Posted by Mr.NoSmile

Once again, and look how that turned out. Besides, by this point, the GOP has pretty much discounted Romney anyway.

You are being shifty here, while the GOP has pretty much discounted Romney, apparently you haven't: You claim that in 2016 the GOP fronted by Rand will lose because of all sorts of traditional liberal/democratic positions, but when the last loss is blamed specifically on Romney, you discount that by suggesting that the GOP has discounted him already. Which way is it going to be?

Selective hearing. Don't put words in my mouth, thank you very much, especially when I'm not the one who brought Romney into the discussion, just the economy. Also, no, I never said the GOP 'fronted' by Rand Paul would lose. Heck, I never said he'd lose to begin with. I commented on the GOP's image and how that's going to impact Paul, as well as how Americans may discount the GOP altogether based on their views on things such as immigration, marriage, guns and such when nationwide views are shifting.

I said it'd be an uphill battle- there's a difference. Again, selective hearing.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

I would give Rand a 80% chance of winning Iowa right now even if he refused to bother campaigning in that state instead opting to go on Newt style travel festivities for the entire cycle.

idk where this 1% chance stuff comes from.

Yes. If Iowa was right now, Rand could win. This is 2-3 years out, and he could win. In fact, if Rand mounts a serious campaign in the next year or two, I predict that he can win Iowa by double digits.

If the C4L mailing is correct the fed is going to print $1.7 Trillion-ish dollars this year. The banks definitely aren't anywhere near the most efficient place to put money to create jobs, but $1.7T is $1.7T.

RonPaulForums.com / LibertyForest.com is a grassroots web site with absolutely no official connection to Ron Paul or any election campaign. RonPaulForums.com / LibertyForest.com is privately owned and operated.